Despite the well-known fact that the antibiotic medication destined for human consumption is strictly regulated by the

medical community through the use of prescriptions, equivalent standards of supervision are not present for the same classes of antibiotic drugs used to treat other species. This is an issue that, until recently, has received very little public attention. As a student majoring in Agricultural Sciences, I personally discovered the severity of this problem by attending presentations by professors of Animal Science through my college. Most people, however, do not have the same access to this sort of information, especially when it is not reported in the news. This is a cause of concern, since studies project that 90% of antibiotics sold within the United States go toward animal, not human, consumption (Witte, 1997). The lax rules on antibiotics intended for animals create a multitude of issues. Consumers of animal products are both directly and indirectly impacted by antibiotic distribution to animals. Excessive use of these medications in livestock has been linked to an increase in the prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The overuse of antibiotics in animal feed also has a significant environmental impact. The public needs to become aware of this issue, especially since new legislation pertaining to this problem could be enacted in the near future. Therefore, as a result of this, it is our responsibility as voters to elect representatives who will ensure that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will take a stronger stance in the regulation of these antibiotics not intended for human consumption. The current practice of administering mass amounts of antibiotics to livestock through their feed poses a direct threat to human health because of the risk of developing resistant bacterial populations. Of the antibiotics administered to livestock, 80% is destined to be used solely in feed as a preventative measure, not as a method of treating individually ill animals (Witte, 1997). This convention in our current agricultural system entails the administration of a

consistent low-to-moderate amount of antibiotics in each animals feed ration, even when the animal is healthy. The origination of this practice can be traced back to studies carried out in the 1960s. At that time, researchers discovered that inserting antibiotics in farm animal feed was an inexpensive method of preventing illness from overtaking the herd, while also aiding farmers in producing animals that could gain weight faster than the average non-medicated animal (Millet & Maertens, 2011). These findings triggered a revolution in our food system. Since the FDA failed to implement any regulations for antibiotics in livestock, farmers, left to their own devices, began self-medicating their animals without any training whatsoever. The FDA did recommend, and still does advocate for, what they call judicious use of antibiotics by livestock producers, essentially relying on these producers to correctly administer medications, even though they do not have the knowledge to safely and correctly do so (Perrone, 2012). Consequently, overuse and mismanagement have caused a proliferation of resistant bacteria colonies. The antibiotics in the diets of the livestock allow populations of antibiotic resistant bacteria, such as certain strains of E. coli, to accumulate in the digestive system of the animals. These resistant bacteria can then enter the food supply, causing infections in people that cannot be treated with our existing drugs. Low levels of resistant bacteria strains have even been found in healthy human populations (Witte, 1997). The prevalence of these resistant bacteria throughout all levels of our environment should produce a significant amount of concern for the state of our health. In addition to bacterial resistance development, the abundance of antibiotics in livestock diets causes a multitude of environmental problems. When a high concentration of livestock is present in an area, a manure lagoon is often used as the primary method of waste disposal. The waste from the livestock is collected and stored in liquid lakes of manure. This liquid is then either treated or used as fertilizer in the spring. When animals are fed diets that contain

antibiotics, traces of these drugs are carried through their waste. Therefore, these manure lagoons contain antibiotic residue within them, which is then spread into the environment. The residue enters the groundwater through runoff; this groundwater is often used by humans, encouraging the propagation of even more resistant bacteria. Contaminated groundwater also enters rivers and streams, affecting local aquatic life. A correlation has been shown between antibiotic levels in waterways and an elevated level of mutation in frogs and other aquatic life. Local animal herds that drink this water can be adversely impacted as well, since drinking the antibiotic filled water can create a buildup of resistant bacteria in their populations, decimating their herds (Chapin, 2004). Livestock farmers claim that the use of antibiotics keeps the cost of meat low and affordable for the average American consumer. They state that the use of antibiotics is justified, despite the dangers posed to the environment and consumers (Perrone, 2012). However, unless the ordinary consumer is fully aware of all the potential dangers surrounding the use of antibiotics in food, they cannot make an informed decision about the matter. It is the right of voters to elect knowledgeable officials who will enact legislation setting guidelines for the use of antibiotics in livestock. The FDA has begun to recognize the dangers of overusing of antibiotics, and recent developments have made many officials in Congress expect legislation to be enacted concerning the regulation of these drugs. The FDA has come under pressure from environmental and health organizations in recent years, putting them under stress to change the agricultural industry (Perrone, 2012). Support for stricter agricultural drug laws has grown monumentally, as other countries successfully implemented complete bans of these drugs. For example, Denmark implemented a ban of these antibiotics in the mid-1990s. Since that time, Denmark has become the poster child of successful implementation of feed drug restrictions. They have had over a

50% reduction in the overall use of antibiotic drugs in their country, with resistant bacterial populations down 60% to 80% (Stephenson, 2003). In early April, the FDA requested that farmers voluntarily shift to a feed regimen that does not include antibiotics. However, the FDA does not have the power to enforce strict parameters on livestock producers, and would have to pursue legal proceedings for every drug used agriculturally in order to require a prescription for their administration (Perrone, 2012). The government needs to step in to put the change the FDA has realized needs to happen into effect through the passage of laws. If the FDA attempts to enact this process by itself, it will take generations to complete. Therefore, it is necessary for voters to elect officials into office who will assist the FDA in this matter and legislate the needed changes. As American citizens, we have one of the safest food supplies in the world. Despite this security, our methods of maintaining a safe and abundant food supply need to be reevaluated; our current practice of mass administration of antibiotic feed will have far-reaching and lasting implications to the health of the environment and ourselves. The FDA has begun to recognize the necessity of these changes. Unfortunately, they do not have enough power to regulate the antibiotic industry. We need our public officials to step in and pass laws that would grant the FDA the authority to enforce standards of administration for these drugs. As voting citizens, we must require our government officials to be aware of issues such as this, which are pertinent to the health and wellbeing of our families. As awareness of this issue spreads, voters will look towards representatives with our best interest at heart, who are not afraid to take a stand against antibiotic abuse.

References Chapin A. (2004). Airborne multidrug-resistant bacteria isolated from a concentrated swine feeding operation. Environ Health Perspect, 113:137142. doi:10.1289/ehp.7473 Millet, S., & Maertens, L. (2011). The European ban on antibiotic growth promoters in animal feed: From challenges to opportunities. Veterinary Journal (London, England: 1997),187(2), 143-144. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.05.001 Perrone, M. (2012, April 12). FDA wants antibiotic limited: Scientists say process can create stronger germs in animals. Charleston Daily Mail, pp. D.5. Stephenson, J. (2003). Antibiotics in animal feed. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 290(11), 1443-1443. doi:10.1001/jama.290.11.1443-b Witte, W. (1997). Impact of antibiotic use in animal feeding on resistance of bacterial pathogens in humans. In D.J. Chadwick & J. Goode (Eds.), Antibiotic Resistance: Origins, Evolution, Selection and Spread (pp. 61-75). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.